Radiation Dose of Cone-beam Computed Tomography Compared to Conventional Radiographs in Orthodontics

Overview

Journal J Orofac Orthop

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2016 Jan 10

PMID 26747662

Citations 45

Authors

Luca Signorelli

Raphael Patcas

Timo Peltomaki

Marc Schatzle

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine radiation doses of different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan modes in comparison to a conventional set of orthodontic radiographs (COR) by means of phantom dosimetry.

Materials And Methods: Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) chips (3 × 1 × 1 mm) were used on an adult male tissue-equivalent phantom to record the distribution of the absorbed radiation dose. Three different scanning modes (i.e., portrait, normal landscape, and fast scan landscape) were compared to CORs [i.e., conventional lateral (LC) and posteroanterior (PA) cephalograms and digital panoramic radiograph (OPG)].

Results: The following radiation levels were measured: 131.7, 91, and 77 μSv in the portrait, normal landscape, and fast landscape modes, respectively. The overall effective dose for a COR was 35.81 μSv (PA: 8.90 μSv; OPG: 21.87 μSv; LC: 5.03 μSv).

Discussion: Although one CBCT scan may replace all CORs, one set of CORs still entails 2-4 times less radiation than one CBCT. Depending on the scan mode, the radiation dose of a CBCT is about 3-6 times an OPG, 8-14 times a PA, and 15-26 times a lateral LC. Finally, in order to fully reconstruct cephalograms including the cranial base and other important structures, the CBCT portrait mode must be chosen, rendering the difference in radiation exposure even clearer (131.7 vs. 35.81 μSv). Shielding radiation-sensitive organs can reduce the effective dose considerably.

Conclusion: CBCT should not be recommended for use in all orthodontic patients as a substitute for a conventional set of radiographs. In CBCT, reducing the height of the field of view and shielding the thyroid are advisable methods and must be implemented to lower the exposure dose.

Citing Articles

After Extraction, Upper Premolars Undergo Programmed Socket Collapse with Development of Cavitations Rather than Complete Socket Healing: A Radiological Study.

Ghanaati S, Smieszek-Wilczewska J, Al-Maawi S, Heselich A, Sader R Bioengineering (Basel). 2025; 12(2).

PMID: 40001648 PMC: 11851877. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering12020128.

Comparison of conventional two-dimensional and digital three-dimensional imaging in orthodontics : A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Haude A, Lehmann T, Hennig C, Jacobs C J Orofac Orthop. 2025; .

PMID: 39976657 DOI: 10.1007/s00056-024-00574-7.

Evaluation of Dental Panoramic Radiographs by Artificial Intelligence Compared to Human Reference: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

Turosz N, Checinska K, Checinski M, Sielski M, Sikora M J Clin Med. 2024; 13(22).

PMID: 39598002 PMC: 11595016. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13226859.

Relationship between Cephalometric and Ultrasonic Airway Parameters in Adults with High Risk of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Terawatpothong A, Sessirisombat C, Banhiran W, Hotokezaka H, Yoshida N, Sirisoontorn I J Clin Med. 2024; 13(12).

PMID: 38930069 PMC: 11204907. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13123540.

Comparative Analysis of Examination Methods for Periapical Lesion Diagnostics: Assessing Cone-Beam Computer Tomography, Ultrasound, and Periapical Radiography.

Karkle A, Slaidina A, Zolovs M, Vaskevica A, Meistere D, Bokvalde Z Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(7).

PMID: 38611679 PMC: 11011571. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14070766.

References

Damstra J, Fourie Z, Ren Y . Evaluation and comparison of postero-anterior cephalograms and cone-beam computed tomography images for the detection of mandibular asymmetry. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 35(1):45-50. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr045. View

Smith B, Park J, Cederberg R . An evaluation of cone-beam computed tomography use in postgraduate orthodontic programs in the United States and Canada. J Dent Educ. 2011; 75(1):98-106. View

Misch K, Yi E, Sarment D . Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal defect measurements. J Periodontol. 2006; 77(7):1261-6. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2006.050367. View

BRODIE A . Cephalometric roentgenology; history, technics and uses. J Oral Surg (Chic). 1949; 7(3):185-98. View

Roberts J, Drage N, Davies J, Thomas D . Effective dose from cone beam CT examinations in dentistry. Br J Radiol. 2008; 82(973):35-40. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/31419627. View

Valentin J . Managing patient dose in multi-detector computed tomography(MDCT). ICRP Publication 102. Ann ICRP. 2007; 37(1):1-79, iii. DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2007.09.001. View

Botticelli S, Verna C, Cattaneo P, Heidmann J, Melsen B . Two- versus three-dimensional imaging in subjects with unerupted maxillary canines. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 33(4):344-9. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq102. View

Silva M, Wolf U, Heinicke F, Bumann A, Visser H, Hirsch E . Cone-beam computed tomography for routine orthodontic treatment planning: a radiation dose evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(5):640.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.019. View

Baumrind S, Frantz R . The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod. 1971; 60(5):505-17. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(71)90116-3. View

10.

Patcas R, Muller L, Ullrich O, Peltomaki T . Accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography at different resolutions assessed on the bony covering of the mandibular anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 141(1):41-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.034. View

11.

Kaeppler G . Applications of cone beam computed tomography in dental and oral medicine. Int J Comput Dent. 2010; 13(3):203-19. View

12.

Cohen M . Pediatric CT radiation dose: how low can you go?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192(5):1292-303. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.2174. View

13.

Grunheid T, Kolbeck Schieck J, Pliska B, Ahmad M, Larson B . Dosimetry of a cone-beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital x-ray machine in orthodontic imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141(4):436-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.10.024. View

14.

Halazonetis D . Cone-beam computed tomography is not the imaging technique of choice for comprehensive orthodontic assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141(4):403, 405, 407 passim. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.02.010. View

15.

Kokich V . Cone-beam computed tomography: have we identified the orthodontic benefits?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(4 Suppl):S16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.014. View

16.

Patcas R, Signorelli L, Peltomaki T, Schatzle M . Is the use of the cervical vertebrae maturation method justified to determine skeletal age? A comparison of radiation dose of two strategies for skeletal age estimation. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 35(5):604-9. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjs043. View

17.

Al Najjar A, Colosi D, Dauer L, Prins R, Patchell G, Branets I . Comparison of adult and child radiation equivalent doses from 2 dental cone-beam computed tomography units. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 143(6):784-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.01.013. View

18.

Becker A, Chaushu S, Casap-Caspi N . Cone-beam computed tomography and the orthosurgical management of impacted teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010; 141 Suppl 3:14S-8S. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0360. View

19.

Ludlow J . A manufacturer's role in reducing the dose of cone beam computed tomography examinations: effect of beam filtration. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2011; 40(2):115-22. PMC: 3520301. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/31708191. View

20.

Lamichane M, Anderson N, Rigali P, Seldin E, Will L . Accuracy of reconstructed images from cone-beam computed tomography scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136(2):156.e1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.006. View